[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33291958]I'm not saying that studying the universe is bad or useless. Studying how it was MADE is useless. It seems as if I wasn't very clear.[/QUOTE]
no, we know that. We are saying that is useful knowledge. all knowledge is useful knowledge.
One thing that stumps me, and no im not getting into any god talk here but.
If everything is just some matter in one way or another, how does an individual consciousness form?
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;33292694]One thing that stumps me, and no im not getting into any god talk here but.
If everything is just some matter in one way or another, how does an individual consciousness form?[/QUOTE]
good question. One of the many reasons I remain agnostic.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33292784]good question. One of the many reasons I remain agnostic.[/QUOTE]
Same. It annoys the hell out of me, because its also not able to be answered. I mean, yes you can make a mind inhabit a body but it would essentially be a robot. Unless the actual "person" was in there.
you could think of it as some sort of super advanced AI, but even that seems sketchy. And if humans can't create AI like that, how could nature accidently do it?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33292900]you could think of it as some sort of super advanced AI, but even that seems sketchy. And if humans can't create AI like that, how could nature accidently do it?[/QUOTE]
But im not talking about knowledge in general im talking about how you are even able to witness events from your body. Im not really good at trying to explain what I mean, so sorry if its weird sounding.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33292784]good question. One of the many reasons I remain agnostic.[/QUOTE] Well I don't see how the two are linked. I mean the brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe and we still haven't figured anything out. I don't see how it proves/disproves god. An unexplained doesn't give support to a claim.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33293253]Well I don't see how the two are linked. I mean the brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe and we still haven't figured anything out. I don't see how it proves/disproves god. An unexplained doesn't give support to a claim.[/QUOTE]
I never said I believe in god. I meant that I have a hard time believing something as complex as the brain, something more complex than any computer, can be designed without some sort of intelligent force.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33293253]Well I don't see how the two are linked. I mean the brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe and we still haven't figured anything out. I don't see how it proves/disproves god. An unexplained doesn't give support to a claim.[/QUOTE]
This isn't about god.
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282237]The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.[/QUOTE]
You can't say that for a fact. If we can understand how something works, how it was created, we can attempt to do it ourselves, or even manipulate what it is that we sought to understand.
The knowledge gained from knowing how the universe was born might give us the knowledge to manipulate the universe - you can't even begin to say what will, and won't come from a discovery.
The global positioning system would be impossible without relativity - a theory which people thought would be useless to us humans. The MRI scanner is only possible with quantum mechanics, modern day microchips and transistors too - again, theories that the layman thought would be useless to us humans because we're at a length scale at which those rules don't apply.
I read a good quote once, I think it was in The Last Question by Isaac Asimov (could be wrong there, though) in which someone said something along the lines of, "all abstract knowledge will eventually be useful," and if history is of any indication, that's probably true.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;33294326]This isn't about god.[/QUOTE] Well he said its one of the reasons he remains agnostic so it does.
[editline]15th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wikus Darraign;33282237]The knowledge of how our universe/planet was made is absolutely a waste of time, and gets us no where. That's what I'm trying to say is all. I'm not try to dissuade anyone from wanting to learn how our universe/planet was made, just saying that it's useless to know or care about.[/QUOTE] Except it does. Sure understanding special relativity might have seemed like it would never have a use but it does now for GPSes or evolution which helps us with many things.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33295604]Well he said its one of the reasons he remains agnostic so it does.
[editline]15th November 2011[/editline]
Except it does. Sure understanding special relativity might have seemed like it would never have a use but it does now for GPSes or evolution which helps us with many things.[/QUOTE]
Agnosticism doesn't mean you think god might exist. It means you don't believe humans fully understand what created the universe, and that something other than science might be involved. But I do not in any way think the traditional god is real. Humans are just one species on one planet in the entire universe, so it would be vain to think there is a big white man sitting up in the clouds, sending people to heaven.
Who believes that two nothings collided and made something?
[QUOTE=_RJ_;33299330]Who believes that two nothings collided and made something?[/QUOTE]
If I am correct, that is not the big bang theory. the big bang theory states that one super-dense piece of matter exploded and the bits and pieces of the universe.
Every planet in the universe was made by one giant space worm. Every planet was made by a shit that came out of the worm. Every sun was made a rare space glow worm. This is how the universe was made. Today the mighty space worm still flies in space creating one world after another.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33299976]If I am correct, that is not the big bang theory. the big bang theory states that one super-dense piece of matter exploded and the bits and pieces of the universe.[/QUOTE]
I think "rapid expansion" would be a better term to use than "explosion". Calling it an explosion might confuse people into thinking that there was nothing that exploded into something. The idea of the big bang is that the universe was packed into one unimaginably dense singularity. Let's call the universe XYZ.. the big bang expanded it from
XYZ
to
X..................Y.......................Z (with the dots representing immense distances) , X, Y, and Z, never got bigger, just spread further apart.
everything got spread apart as the universe rapidly inflated, kind of like blowing up a balloon. According to quantum entanglement, X Y and Z (everything in the universe) are still connected/ "entangled", just as they were before the big bang, and space is just the illusion that X Y and Z are separate pieces.
So it wasn't that "two nothings collided to make something", it's that the universe was one infinitely dense singularity that rapidly expanded. How that singularity came into being is something scientists are still working on
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33292900]how could nature accidently do it?[/QUOTE]
It wasn't by accident at all. Evolution is nonrandom.
[editline]16th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;33301247]According to quantum entanglement, X Y and Z (everything in the universe) are still connected/ "entangled", just as they were before the big bang, and space is just the illusion that X Y and Z are separate pieces.[/QUOTE]
no
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33302330]It wasn't by accident at all. Evolution is nonrandom.[/QUOTE]
Yup.
Genetic mutation tends to be random, but the everything that happens after that isn't.
Nature doesn't 'accidently' do anything. Because nature is not conscious.
Would you consider the sun heating up the ground an accident?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33302330]
no[/QUOTE]
What about this?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk[/media]
[QUOTE=Noble;33302419]What about this?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk[/media][/QUOTE]
Yes but that doesn't mean the whole fucking Universe is entangled.
I mean we can empirically show that not everything is entangled, it's a basic fact
Interesting. I figured if everything was entangled at the moment of the big bang, everything would always stay entangled. Did some searching and came up with this
[quote]> I was wondering whether it were possible that every particle in the
> universe is entangled with every other. The argument goes: at the
> moment of the Big Bang, this was the case(dubious). Once everything is
> entangled, it remains so for the rest of eternity.
In principle, yes. However, if one picks up an arbitrary pair of
particles, and trace out the rest of the universe, this monstrual
entanglement gets washed away, and one is left with practically
uncorrelated states.[/quote]
[url]http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108256[/url]
[QUOTE=Contag;33302376]Yup.
Genetic mutation tends to be random, but the everything that happens after that isn't.
Nature doesn't 'accidently' do anything. Because nature is not conscious.
Would you consider the sun heating up the ground an accident?[/QUOTE]
okay, "accident" is the wrong word. What I mean is how could evolution create something more complex than any computer, without trying to?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33306671]okay, "accident" is the wrong word. What I mean is how could evolution create something more complex than any computer, without trying to?[/QUOTE]
Because it must. Selective pressures are called selective pressures because they are environmental or circumstantial pressures that result in the selection of certain genetic traits based on necessity.
For instance, when the atmosphere of the Earth became oxygen-rich, living things adapted to breathe in oxygen from the air, not because some invisible force willed them to do so, but because living creatures thrive on the exploitation of natural resources.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33306671]okay, "accident" is the wrong word. What I mean is how could evolution create something more complex than any computer, without trying to?[/QUOTE]
About 3 billion years of competition.
[QUOTE=J Paul;33306752]Because it must. Selective pressures are called selective pressures because they are environmental or circumstantial pressures that result in the selection of certain genetic traits based on necessity.
For instance, when the atmosphere of the Earth became oxygen-rich, living things adapted to breathe in oxygen from the air, not because some invisible force willed them to do so, but because living creatures thrive on the exploitation of natural resources.[/QUOTE]
And Kakistocrat you also have to realize that life didn't just go 'looks like things have changed, better change myself'.
Almost everything died at that point, and that life as a whole didn't go extinct is really quite fortunate.
You have to keep in mind that almost every species that has existed so far has [I]already[/I] gone extinct
There are three key aspects (obviously simplified but enough to get across the point) to how evolution can create really complex lifeforms
Life is self-replicating, it mutates, and it is subject to selective pressure
A lifeform can go through millions of random variations over a period of time, and the 'best suited' variation becomes dominant
If you do this process enough, it can create really complex things
That doesn't mean that it always works out though
For example, sickle cell anemia is a mutation that developed due to malaria
Plants reflect green light (and thus are green), as opposed to doing the more efficient thing and absorbing all light (and would look green)
Here is a very simplified little game that uses a genetic algorithm to create cars, and then selects the best variations, breeds then and does it again
you'll see in the first few generations, most of them are absolute abominations, but eventually you develop a rather efficient car
[url]http://boxcar2d.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33306671]okay, "accident" is the wrong word. What I mean is how could evolution create something more complex than any computer, without trying to?[/QUOTE]
time and countless trillions of deaths
research how antibiotic-resistant bacteria came about. if you understand that, you can apply the base concept to any lifeform.
[QUOTE=J Paul;33306752]certain genetic traits[/QUOTE]
That is one of the dilemma's. what caused eukaryotic cells to put a combination of sugar, phosphates, and bases to form DNA, the hereditary material that makes evolution possible. How did DNA, RNA, and ribosomes develop?
and yes, I understand individual organisms do not involve.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;33133298]big bang theory, look it up
tl;dr for it, dense as fuck singularity expands forming planets and stars on the way[/QUOTE]
The first law of thermodynamics and the law of mass conservation, look it up
tl;dr for it, energy or matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, and mass cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.
[QUOTE=JumJum;33307463]The first law of thermodynamics and the law of mass conservation, look it up
tl;dr for it, energy or matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, and mass cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, things (matter and energy) within a universe cannot come from nothing, but whole universes themselves can come from nothing.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.... the universe can and will create itself from nothing" - Stephen Hawking
Check out [url=https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/M-theory]M-theory wikipedia page[/url] for more information about it
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33307246]That is one of the dilemma's. what caused eukaryotic cells to put a combination of sugar, phosphates, and bases to form DNA, the hereditary material that makes evolution possible. How did DNA, RNA, and ribosomes develop?
and yes, I understand individual organisms do not involve.[/QUOTE]
It's just a chemical reaction, it's not like a magical thing or anything. If you get those certain things together in an environment similar to early Earth with those same conditions, that's what happens as a result. In fact there are a lot of settings where similar chemical reactions take place, like inside of meteorites, by lightning in certain atmospheres, and deep ocean vents. The life that currently lives around Earth's deep ocean vents is like the life that originally formed there, not like us, which is what makes those places under water so interesting to study.
I mean you could also ask why hydrogen peroxide has an explosive reaction when in contact with silver and you'd get the same answer, it all has to do with how molecules interact given certain conditions.
The first replicating molecule capable of storing data was probably RNA, but it was very well probably preceded by something less complex. You can actually read about all of this on wikipedia if you want a digestible version, but wikipedia is better used as a way to find credible sources of information from which you can read the information first-hand.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.